Hello, On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:59:36 -0400 Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre <mathieu...@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> It also doesn't solve a second case we're trying to cover: the fact > that usb-modeswitch would be the only package in the boot path on > *Ubuntu* that would rely on Tcl. That's another reason why a compiled > language was chosen. Please get ready: there will be one more. > > 2) "Allow interpretation using separate jimtcl" > Sounds like a good idea to ship jimtcl separately anyway. That said, > the comments above apply again. There's jim already packaged, as a library and as an interpreter! > > For now, the upstream developer hasn't included this rewrite > > into the upstream package (for his own set of reasons). My current > > strategy is to avoid as much as possible to diverge from upstream, > > hence why it's not in Debian's usb-modeswitch for now. > Yup, it's already out-of-sync, though I'll try to get this fixed in > the next two weeks. I've also sent another email to upstream about > including the "rewrite". The end goal would be to have a tarball that > provides both options: a tcl version and a C version of the > -dispatcher code. The version to use could be chosen at build time. Why do you need this? What's wrong with having an ultrasmall interpreter in default Ubuntu, which provides more features than bash, which is much faster and much smaller? Also, you're redoing upstream's work in an absolutely opposite direction: they've moved away from C, and you're bringing it back! > I'm obviously all for this option, but I agree it would be much better > if it was included in the tarball. No. Just keep it as is. -- WBR, Andrew
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
